posted on March 14, 2002 08:07:01 PM new
If you're a Court TV viewer, you're familiar with this witchy former prosecutor. She's currently moderating discussion about certain portions of the Westerfield hearing, and she's sunk to a new low in her commentary -- namely by modulating her voice in stage-like fashion to coo softly when speaking of slain Danielle van Dam and then dervishing into hateful rhetoric when referring to Westerfield -- who's not yet on trial.
While I fully expect that Westerfield will be bound over to face charges of kidnapping and murder, I have found myself gritting my teeth at Nancy Grace's outlandish television performance. Give me Rikki Klieman anyday, with her cool, quietly sardonic approach to The Law -- she seems to have learned that it's "an ass", while Nancy Grace merely trundles along happy to be one...
It should be noted that an anti-NancyGrace forum was recently wiped fromYahoo! Dislike her at your peril!
posted on March 14, 2002 08:21:45 PM new
Drama in front of a camera is good for the career. Ask any politican.
I think that this guy may be getting railroaded. It all happened too fast: missing, publicicy, suspect, evidence "found" at the "crime scene", the subsequent finding of the remains. I mean, couldn't the parents have killed the little kid, then planted a blood-stained whatever in their next-door neighbor's house to ally suspicion? Couldn't the girl's relatives have done the same thing? In fact, don't the police do this all too often to an innocent person when the pressure to find the killer comes on?
posted on March 14, 2002 08:53:01 PM new
I watched the preliminary hearing for pretty much all 3 days. It was televised here locally. It ended today and the judge bound Westerfield over for trial.(No surprise there.) Except for dna evidence, it's pretty much circumstantial evidence that was offered. I have to say that I have been pretty much convinced of Westerfields guilt going into the preliminary hearing, but I have to say, I have a more open mind about it now. Westerfield has a top notch attorney...more than competent. I suspect the DA has his work cut out for him.
I do hope the DA's office sits down with Mr. and Mrs Van Dam and give them some "pointers" on testifying. Watching them avoid questions, have sudden bouts of amnesia, and in Mrs. Van Dam's case, outright lie, about uncomfortable facts will only serve to plant the seeds of doubt in a jury's mind as it did in mine. In the trial, much more will be brought out than was allowed in the prelim, and the Van Dams are going to need to be brutally honest, as uncomfortable as that honesty will be for them.
And hopefully, Damon Van Dam will lose his smirk. It does nothing for his credibility.
posted on March 14, 2002 09:37:47 PM new Katy, we're on some weird time-delay broadcast here -- our coverage of the hearing never begins before noon and then is spliced to smithereens with Nancy Grace's insipid commentary. I missed today's coverage -- didn't get to see the parents take the stand nor did I know that Westerfield had officially been bound over for trial. I concur that his primary attorney is more than adequate to the challenge before him and I'm of two minds in that regard:
1) If Westerfield did it, how does the attorney defending him live with himself?
2) If Westerfield didn't do it, he's damned fortunate that he can afford the likes of Feldman; how many innocent people go to the gallows because they're represented by ill-equipped, over-worked public defenders?
posted on March 15, 2002 04:29:37 AM new
The more info that comes out in this case the stranger it gets.
I just read that the mother was in her garage smoking pot with her friends the night the daughter disappeared. She then went out to a bar with her friends and smoked more pot, and was with the suspect at the bar. Her husband stayed home with the kids.
After leaving the bar she went home and drank and smoked more pot with her husband and friends, and they went to bed at 2:30 AM. During this time, no one checked on the children, who were asleep in their rooms.
While the neighbor may be involved, I think there may be more to this case than meets the eye.
With all those people high and drunk in the home anything could have happened.
posted on March 15, 2002 10:03:13 AM new
Reamond, there will be much more that comes out at trial. Much of what the defense will offer was not allowed at the prelim, because the rules are that only the evidence or testimony offered by the prosecution can be disputed or impeached by the defense. What is interesting is that the defense chose to vigorously defend the evidence offered by the prosecution. It gives a "taste" of what the defense's strategy will be at trial. What I consider brilliant on the part of the defense, is to use the preliminary hearing to offer this "taste" of things to come, knowing that the hearing was televised live locally, and thus getting to the potential jury pool. One of the biggest concerns of the defense has been the media circus surrounding the case, where basically the defendant has been tried and convicted in the media. I think the defense used the prelim to "counter" the very biased media coverage to dispel some of the "rumors" out there and present some information that at the very least might keep open the minds of that potential jury pool.
Remember, that all of the evidence presented was circumstantial, with the exception of dna evidence, which the defense may be able to come up with a plausible explanation (note the testimony regarding Damon's complaints of Westerfield parking his rv in violation of the cc &r's) or even dispute the dna evidence as being contaminated (a la O.J.)
Pat, perhaps Westerfield's attorney doesn't believe he is guilty, or at the very least, doesn't believe that the evidence is sufficient for a conviction. Frankly, being a defense attorney would be impossible for me, but I come from a different "world". Still, we must remember that in our justice system, one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It doesn't always work perfectly, but it is about the best legal system in the world. I would much rather be "innocent" until proven guilty, than say, "guilty" until proven innocent, as in Mexico, for example.
posted on March 15, 2002 12:32:56 PM new
I haven't been following this story, but I sure agree with you Pat! While she makes some good points, they're lost in all the theatrics.
Once you see her rawbunzel, she's hard to forget for some reason...
"Sometimes when we touch, the honesty's too much....."
Not wishing to start another imbecilic OJ thread, but if a sample is "contaminated", you do not get a "false positive". That's impossible. You get a bad test.
A DNA match means "get the rope".
Interesting to see Borillar is starting another "conspiracy" theory. I'll bet in the end they find out George W. did it.
posted on March 15, 2002 02:17:00 PM new
Sorry DeSquirrel, it's not impossible. The most common cause would be sample mixup. You haven't lived until those supposedly sticky labels fall off your tubes in the lab and you have to recollect your samples.
Hey, I got 3 redtops here with no labels!
Or
You're going to have to redraw those samples. Why? Err, they got dropped.
And remember, nothing is impossible in statistics.
Put in bracket
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
[ edited by snowyegret on Mar 15, 2002 02:19 PM ]
posted on March 15, 2002 02:22:22 PM newNot wishing to start another imbecilic OJ thread, but if a sample is "contaminated", you do not get a "false positive". That's impossible. You get a bad test.
DeSquirrel, I'm not sure what you are talking about with a "false positive". If you are talking about the hemostick onsite testing for blood, yes it's quite possible to get a "false positive" on a substance that is not human blood. That is why the specimens, once tested onsite as positive (whether they turn out to be false or not) are collected and submitted to the lab for further testing. "False positive" is not a term used for DNA, it is a term used for testing a specimen with a chemical to determine whether it is human blood.
In this case, it is likely that the defense will either
1) come up with an explanation of how Danielle's DNA came to be in the RV, Westerfield's house, and/or his clothes.
2)will dispute the DNA evidence at the locations above as being contaminated by the specimen collectors, lab workers, or both.
3) A combination of 1 and 2 above.
KatyD
(once is enough! )
[ edited by KatyD on Mar 15, 2002 02:23 PM ]
I didn't say anything about lost or mislabeled samples. I said basically you don't spit in Snowy's sample and it comes up OJ.
Oh, and if a label was lost and you test the sample and it comes up a match for suspect XXXXX it's a match too unless, of course, subject XXXXX has a few samples in for a few different crime scenes!
I was talking about DNA. Supposedly they have a DNA match inthis case. The "false positive" was in reference to the OJ trial, where the lawyers called the matches "false positives" because of "contamination".
posted on March 15, 2002 02:30:21 PM new
Well in that case, they were disputing the "Positive" match that the DNA tested was O.J.'s.
Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't argue that O.J. had an identical twin that had been separated at birth. It would have been much more believable.
KatyD
posted on March 17, 2002 04:50:07 PM new
I can't stand Nancy Grace, either! I thought I was the only one. When we lived in another state and actually HAD court tv on our cable, I watched it a lot, but when she came on I would change the channel. Much tooooo dramatic for my taste and not very objective. Cute until she opens her mouth. Then just loud!
posted on March 17, 2002 06:42:47 PM new
Well, Mistress of Smith, I would like to point out that my comment W-A-Y back there was about Nancy Grace. Hmmph.
I may not know who she is but I said her name.
posted on March 17, 2002 08:06:28 PM new
Smith,Smith,Smith......
Please review my last post.... the one where I actually mention the name of Nancy Grace as well as saying I do not know who she is but said her name anyway.
How much more do you expect me to say about someone I know nothing of???
posted on March 17, 2002 08:22:31 PM new
LOL! And stop calling me "Smith"! It reminds me too much of that odious AC creature. (For whom, btw, I feel we should perform an all-night exorcism soon.)
How is it, Rawbunzel, that you andI never "met" before Newt's Wurld?You crack me up, Madame
posted on March 17, 2002 08:29:34 PM new
LOL! We did meet Plsmith. There were just so many others around I blended in! No blending anymore!
The AC Smith is an odious creature. At least when it speaks. Possibly under a different ID it's someone I like~who knows~ so maybe they do need to be excorcised to rid them of whatever is possesing them. I'm up for it.
When will you untie KRS and let him come out to
play?
posted on March 17, 2002 08:39:04 PM new
Alas, I don't know where krs is. My hope is that he's busy moving -- meaning he and his wife finally found a great place and they're both too busy getting there to bother with coming here.
Lord knows it wouldn't take much to get me to absent this place for a few days
Okay, so while we await his triumphant return, what say we busy ourselves with the details of liberating smith's tormented soul? Difficult to chant online with much feeling... what do you suggest, Salamander Superior?
posted on March 17, 2002 08:51:38 PM new
No one says we have to type with feeling to perform [that being the key word here. LOL ] an online exorcism.Not sure how many people we'd need to chant. At least four I think....maybe thirteen...no that's a coven and we don't want that...ok four.
Just think... it would be the first exorcism of it's kind!Maybe ..if it worked really well we could start an online exorcism business.I imagine there is a great need for it.Especially at AC.
posted on March 17, 2002 08:56:21 PM new
Can I count on you to meet me there (at AC) then? I'm sure it's just as unpleasant for "smith" to house those demons as it is for us to read his/her vitriolic ramblings...
posted on March 17, 2002 09:00:32 PM new
Sure, I'll meet you at AC. I just have to remember my password.I think we do need at least two more though to make this thing work. Snowy with her tin foil beanies would be good..we'll probably need some of those anyway...Irene is the Grand Guru...she might be handy. Trouble is most people don't really want to post there...at least not so's anyone would know it ...so it might have to be just the two of us.
posted on March 17, 2002 09:12:11 PM new
I promise, if we go, there will be others. That place has stagnated lately beneath anthills of anti-Hepburn, anti-OAUA, anti-Beth idiotic posts. All too boring for most to bother commenting upon. "smith", on the other hand, (and whom I suspect is behind the latest attempt to lambaste Hepburn -- under the nom de plume, "Unreg", is one of the fuctards that is killing AC's Anonymous Tipsters forum. Many of the "fun" regulars there (like Paisley Princess) have ceased to post, have you noticed?
Oh, and I'm one of those people who doesn't post there, either, so you may wind up exorcising all alone
posted on March 17, 2002 09:20:55 PM new
Well then...I think we need a new plan. Maybe we can do it from the super secret oh so very private forum at NewtsWurld? I'm not sure who's name to invoke to get the deed done... In "The Exorcist" they used God. Not sure God wants to get involved in this one. So...who do we invoke the name of?" By the power of BLANK we implore you" just doesn't seem like it would do the trick.
Also...another problem...I am sure ...yes positive....that you must use an Irish accent when doing exorcisms...how does one do that while typing? I am very good at it in RL but typing it does not work..see...I just did it and you can't even tell!!!
hahaha, I say we do not hide it behind the ultra-secret false wall and instead put it out in the open at Newt's. What forum could be more appropriate to this situation, afterall, than "Bye, Bye, Bye" ?
posted on March 17, 2002 10:12:42 PM new
I'm right in the middle of exorcizing the dandruff from my Dad's scalp at the moment... if you don't beat me to it, I'll tromp over to Newt's later and invoke a suitable thread...
Still, we must remember that in our justice system, one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It doesn't always work perfectly, but it is about the best legal system in the world. I would much rather be "innocent" until proven guilty, than say, "guilty" until proven innocent, as in Mexico, for example.
